Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ------ ------PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI ------
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HERB REED ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., AND LARRY MARSHAK, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SUSAN M. FREEMAN Counsel of Record LAWRENCE A. KASTEN JOHN L. KRIEGER LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP 201 East Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 262-5756 [email protected] ERIC M. SOMMERS SOMMERS LAW, PLLC 600 State Street, Suite 1 Portsmouth, NH 03801 (603) 570-4854 Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 392-94 (2006), this Court reversed the “general rule” in patent disputes “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.” The meaning of eBay in patent injunction cases is clear. All of the requirements for an injunc- tion must be established, including irreparable harm, without reliance on categorical pronouncements. Circuit courts are split and lower courts are in disar- ray, however, about whether and how to apply eBay in trademark infringement cases, and the state of the law is such that a trademark plaintiff ’s ability to obtain an injunction currently turns on the happen- stance of the Circuit in which the case is pending. There are significant differences between patent and trademark cases. In patent cases, irreparability of harm does not necessarily flow from the evidence showing infringement. But in a trademark case, the plaintiff must show, inter alia, customer confusion impairing control over the mark or goodwill. As a result, the same evidence that establishes infringe- ment will often show irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit below, however, and some other lower courts, have interpreted eBay and Winter v. Natural Re- sources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21-22 (2008) to require a trademark infringement plaintiff to come forward with something more, although the required added showing is vague. ii QUESTION PRESENTED – Continued The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding eBay means that a district court may not base a finding of irreparable injury on the same evidence used to show likely infringement, such as customer confusion and impairment of control or goodwill. iii LIST OF PARTIES Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC is the petitioner. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc. and Larry Marshak are the respondents. RULE 14.1 AND 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioner Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC is not publicly traded and has no parent corporation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i LIST OF PARTIES ............................................... iii RULE 14.1 AND 29.6 STATEMENT ................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ....... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVI- SIONS INVOLVED .......................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .... 6 1. Significant Differences Between Patent and Trademark Cases Necessitate Guid- ance From the Court.................................. 6 2. The Circuits Are Divided on the Evidence Necessary for Preliminary Injunctive Re- lief in Trademark Infringement Cases ...... 12 3. District Court Litigation, Often on Hur- ried Records, Illustrates the Extent of the Need for This Court’s Guidance ................ 15 4. Likely Irreparable Injury May Be Estab- lished From the Same Evidence as Likely Success on the Merits ................................ 17 5. The Ninth Circuit Erred in This Case ...... 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 23 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page APPENDIX Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion: Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertain- ment Management, Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................... App. 1 United States District Court, District of Nevada Order Granting Plaintiff ’s (HRE) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (July 24, 2012) .......... App. 26 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (c) ...................................... App. 73 15 U.S.C. § 1116 ................................................. App. 79 Table of Reported Post-eBay District Court Trademark Preliminary Injunction Cases .... App. 80 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U.S. 689 (1923) ................................................. 20 Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) ......................................... 9 Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2013) ............................. 12, 13 Am. Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372 (1925) ................................................. 21 Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2006) ................................... 13 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ................................................... 7 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947) ................................................. 20 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ..................................................... 7 Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Ass’n, 209 U.S. 20 (1908) ..................................................... 7 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ......................................... passim Elgin Nat’l Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665 (1901) ................................................. 19 Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403 (1916) ............................................. 9, 20 Inwood Labs. Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) ................................................... 9 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., Case No. 12-873, 2014 WL 1168967, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (Mar. 25, 2014) .............................. 14 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. McCollum, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985) ................................................. 5 Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 (1942) ................................................. 18 N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008) ................................ 13 New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) ................................................... 7 Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 507 U.S. 546 (1993) ................................................. 18 Park ’N Fly v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) ............................................. 9, 16 Powertest Petroleum Distribs., Inc. v. Calcu Gas, Inc., 754 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1985) ....................................... 18 Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49 (1975) ..................................................... 5 Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News L.L.C., 212 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2000) ..................................... 18 TrafFix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, 532 U.S. 23 (2001) ................................................... 14 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) ................................................... 8 United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918) ..................................................... 8 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) ................................................... 5 Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) ................................................. 16 William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526 (1924) ................................................. 20 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ............................................. passim DOCKETED CASES Ferring Pharm. Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., Case No. 13-2290 (3d Cir.) (argued Feb. 12, 2014) ........................................................................ 14 RULES, REGULATIONS AND STATUTES United States Code: 15 U.S.C. § 1051 .............................................. passim 15 U.S.C. § 1116 ........................................................ 2 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) .................................................... 2 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) .................................................... 2 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1) ............................................... 1 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) ................................................... 1 OTHER AUTHORITIES 3 Jerome Gilson, et al., TRADEMARK PROTECTION AND PRACTICE § 8.07[1] (Matthew Bender) (2002) ................................................................. 17, 18 3 Anne Gilson LaLonde,